Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Ex won't work and simply wants to live off me
Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
-
Fighting:
I was in agreement with you until you went gender apesh*t.
I'm a woman...I've worked my whole life even with small children...so please don't throw me under that bus.
And I could name a couple of MALE posters on this site who are trying to leech off their ex-wives and suck out every penny they can...even in one case where the mother is not just the only one working but has the kids while the ex sits around on his ass whining and trying to squeeze every last dime out of her in divorce.
Women paying SS and CS is becoming more and more common statistically.
Historically women have received more from male payors because they had the burden of the large majority of the childcare. That is changing with the times.
And I do agree with your original point...both parties in a divorce have an obligation to get off their butts and work, in some capacity, to help support themselves....regardless of gender.
Comment
-
Originally posted by ele110 View PostYou are not going to like my comments..... however if you are comparing the money she gets and the money you have left, you must do it fairly. She has the kids most of the time, therefore has many more expenses (all non section 7, food, clothing, gas, school supplies, all incidentals related to kids ...) than you have. It is normal that she would have more cash. Kids cost an awful lot. You cannot just compare raw numbers.
I need to maintain a 3 bedroom residence, buy cloths, food, utilities, vehicle expenses and all the essentials while they are at my house too. So yes the custodial parents expenses might be a little higher however the non custodial parent also has those same expenses.
Its not like I can live in a bachelor pad, and ask the ex to send food, money for utilities, clothing, toys and everything else every other weekend.
These same expenses that the non-custodial parent also have were never factored into the CS equations when they were creating the formulas.
Comment
-
Originally posted by cashcow4ex View PostCorrect me if I am wrong but the parent that has the children every other weekend still has those same expenses but on a slightly minimized scale.
I need to maintain a 3 bedroom residence, buy cloths, food, utilities, vehicle expenses and all the essentials while they are at my house too. So yes the custodial parents expenses might be a little higher however the non custodial parent also has those same expenses.
Its not like I can live in a bachelor pad, and ask the ex to send food, money for utilities, clothing, toys and everything else every other weekend.
These same expenses that the non-custodial parent also have were never factored into the CS equations when they were creating the formulas.
We moved to a town outside where we both work because the prices were cheaper, however we still have higher expenses a month than she does and the house we bought was just over $100k, so it was not light we bought over our price range.
The fact is, even though she has the children the majority of the time, she also receives those extra benefits and gets the write offs, which he does not receive. We loved having the kids since Boxing Day and we take them back this coming Sunday, but trust me, we have felt it financially, the summer is the same, even though we have them 50% of the time, full CS is still paid during those two months and while some of her expenses drop, ours increase.
While I think CS guidelines try to be as fair as they can, I do think they need to account for more expenses that the NCP has. While the CP who receives full CS should be providing clothing to the NCP, it rarely happens, which means the NCP ends up paying for clothing twice. I am unsure if there really is a fair way to do the calculation...
Comment
-
Originally posted by cashcow4ex View Postcorrect me if i am wrong but the parent that has the children every other weekend still has those same expenses but on a slightly minimized scale.
I need to maintain a 3 bedroom residence, buy cloths, food, utilities, vehicle expenses and all the essentials while they are at my house too. So yes the custodial parents expenses might be a little higher however the non custodial parent also has those same expenses.
Its not like i can live in a bachelor pad, and ask the ex to send food, money for utilities, clothing, toys and everything else every other weekend.
These same expenses that the non-custodial parent also have were never factored into the cs equations when they were creating the formulas.
Hear! Hear!
Comment
-
Agreed.
In my partner's house we have 2 kids that live with her 50/50 plus my son also joins us EOW. That means we are dreaming about having a 4 bedroom house, sometimes that seems very improbable given that BOTH of us are paying CS to our partners.
It's not really fair, the kids deserve to have their own rooms, their own things, and to feel like they have a home and are not just guests everywhere they go.
Comment
-
I am one of those women that have to pay SS to my ex. My total income is 2100.00 a month and I have to pay him $350.00 plus pay the extra to keep him on my health plan. I will be 63 years old on the 14th, was married for 34 years, carried him all through our marriage, upgraded myself, took course after course to increase my wages and raised 3 sons. I did all the work and housework and in the end I was the one that got screwed because I had the drive and the balls to better myself. I took an early retirement at 57 so the money I get now is from my pension and my CPP only.
I never thought that at this stage and age in my life I would have to go back to work to support myself and him.
I am not a quitter in any way shape or form. I have just sent in a business plan to the ministry to start my own agency at 63!!! I live and have raised my boys with the motto "how bad do you want it".
There is a silver lining in this cloud. My boys and I are closer now then ever. They ask me to do all kinds of things with them and their families now that I'm on my own and won't turn them down because the ex didn't want to go.
Life is good ;-)
Comment
-
Originally posted by FightingForFamily View PostIt's not really fair, the kids deserve to have their own rooms, their own things, and to feel like they have a home and are not just guests everywhere they go.
Raising my own 3 kids in a 3 bedroom house, 2 of them shared a room. As an intact family, we lived well below our means. You know what, they did fine.
What I don't understand is, Ex. now insists he must have a 4 bedroom house in order for university aged children to feel like they have a home.
Comment
-
Instead of looking at it from an individual, adult's perspective, perhaps looking at it from the child's perspective would be better.
As a married couple, an $80,000 lifestyle is pretty good for a child. You can have decent housing, each child gets a room, child is well provided for, etc.
Couple splits, one parent makes $20,000 and the other makes $60,000. Are you saying that the lifestyle could be equal in this scenario without child support?
As a married couple, the majority of your income would go to providing a home and a life to your children. After separation, what would their life be like if there was no support? You get to just walk away? How much of your income went to your kids before the separation? Why should that change now?
Now that we are separated, about 1/4 of stbx's take home pay goes to directly support our kids and their needs. I was a stay at home mom for years. That never bothered him but now, he doesn't want "his" money to support our family. He does pay support voluntarily but he wants it reduced.
I went back to work after separation. I work full time at a minimum wage job while I try to get back into the career I had before I had children. I also don't mind supporting our kids. But I have to admit I am struggling to see how it is equal.
So, six days a month, he has to pay extra hydro, gas, water and food. He has an extra bedroom therefore a slightly higher rent than if the children never went to his home.
We have the same amount of income for the month. That is what child and spousal support is supposed to do. Even out the playing field so the children's needs can be met.
On the same amount of money a month (we are calculated to 52% him 48% me) I have also have a slightly higher rent than if the children lived with me. I have to feed those children the other 25 days, hydro, gas, water, laundry, school fees, etc. I have to buy all their clothes and shoes and boots and outer wear. I could go on and on.
So no, to me, it isn't close. I know it is hard for a NCP to see the other side and there are women who are in it for the money but honestly, if the money is equal but the parenting time is not, then the NCP does come out ahead financially.
Comment
-
Some people certainly have been given a bad deal in their separation/divorce agreements - at least in their perspective.
One thing I can't for the life of me figure out is why someone gets divorced, has a tremendously hard time paying CS and/or SS, and then gets remarried and has more kids? Simply not logical to me and I have a really hard time feeling any sympathy for someone in that situation.
This is a gender-neutral comment.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Lorac View PostI am one of those women that have to pay SS to my ex. My total income is 2100.00 a month and I have to pay him $350.00 plus pay the extra to keep him on my health plan. I will be 63 years old on the 14th, was married for 34 years, carried him all through our marriage, upgraded myself, took course after course to increase my wages and raised 3 sons. I did all the work and housework and in the end I was the one that got screwed because I had the drive and the balls to better myself. I took an early retirement at 57 so the money I get now is from my pension and my CPP only.
I never thought that at this stage and age in my life I would have to go back to work to support myself and him.
I am not a quitter in any way shape or form. I have just sent in a business plan to the ministry to start my own agency at 63!!! I live and have raised my boys with the motto "how bad do you want it".
There is a silver lining in this cloud. My boys and I are closer now then ever. They ask me to do all kinds of things with them and their families now that I'm on my own and won't turn them down because the ex didn't want to go.
Life is good ;-)
Especially if you consider THAT person was a 'slacker' in the first place.
So it may seem unfair the way things turned out (and it sounds like it to me!), but if not for your own gumption you would be much worse off.
That's something to hold dear.
Originally posted by frustratedwithex View PostI never had my own room growing up. 6 kids , 2 parents, 3 bedroom bungalow house, 1 bathroom! We did fine. Come to think of it, its only now that I am separated that I have a room of my own!
Raising my own 3 kids in a 3 bedroom house, 2 of them shared a room. As an intact family, we lived well below our means. You know what, they did fine.
What I don't understand is, Ex. now insists he must have a 4 bedroom house in order for university aged children to feel like they have a home.
I further consider some of my cousins that grew up in families of 6 children - and they basically all shared rooms (even the basement!).
Each and every one of them turned out just fine.
Originally posted by SadAndTired View PostInstead of looking at it from an individual, adult's perspective, perhaps looking at it from the child's perspective would be better.
As a married couple, an $80,000 lifestyle is pretty good for a child. You can have decent housing, each child gets a room, child is well provided for, etc.
Couple splits, one parent makes $20,000 and the other makes $60,000. Are you saying that the lifestyle could be equal in this scenario without child support?
As a married couple, the majority of your income would go to providing a home and a life to your children. After separation, what would their life be like if there was no support? You get to just walk away? How much of your income went to your kids before the separation? Why should that change now?
Now that we are separated, about 1/4 of stbx's take home pay goes to directly support our kids and their needs. I was a stay at home mom for years. That never bothered him but now, he doesn't want "his" money to support our family. He does pay support voluntarily but he wants it reduced.
I went back to work after separation. I work full time at a minimum wage job while I try to get back into the career I had before I had children. I also don't mind supporting our kids. But I have to admit I am struggling to see how it is equal.
So, six days a month, he has to pay extra hydro, gas, water and food. He has an extra bedroom therefore a slightly higher rent than if the children never went to his home.
We have the same amount of income for the month. That is what child and spousal support is supposed to do. Even out the playing field so the children's needs can be met.
On the same amount of money a month (we are calculated to 52% him 48% me) I have also have a slightly higher rent than if the children lived with me. I have to feed those children the other 25 days, hydro, gas, water, laundry, school fees, etc. I have to buy all their clothes and shoes and boots and outer wear. I could go on and on.
So no, to me, it isn't close. I know it is hard for a NCP to see the other side and there are women who are in it for the money but honestly, if the money is equal but the parenting time is not, then the NCP does come out ahead financially.Last edited by wretchedotis; 01-04-2013, 10:20 PM.
Comment
-
on some levels the way the CS tables are work well. particularily once the payor makes a certain amount of money in the first place, well the differnece taken as CS or SS doesn't really hurt them too much. But the closer you live to the poverty line, the more it hurts.
Sending you warm wishes for a better 2013.
Comment
-
Originally posted by SadAndTired View PostYes wretched, I agree so much. Funny how important 20 bucks can be when you simply don't have it.
I've never seen one as never have that much money... LOL
Right back at you! Hope 2013 treat you well
Comment
-
Originally posted by SadAndTired View PostInstead of looking at it from an individual, adult's perspective, perhaps looking at it from the child's perspective would be better.
As a married couple, an $80,000 lifestyle is pretty good for a child. You can have decent housing, each child gets a room, child is well provided for, etc.
Couple splits, one parent makes $20,000 and the other makes $60,000. Are you saying that the lifestyle could be equal in this scenario without child support?
As a married couple, the majority of your income would go to providing a home and a life to your children. After separation, what would their life be like if there was no support? You get to just walk away? How much of your income went to your kids before the separation? Why should that change now?
Now that we are separated, about 1/4 of stbx's take home pay goes to directly support our kids and their needs. I was a stay at home mom for years. That never bothered him but now, he doesn't want "his" money to support our family. He does pay support voluntarily but he wants it reduced.
I went back to work after separation. I work full time at a minimum wage job while I try to get back into the career I had before I had children. I also don't mind supporting our kids. But I have to admit I am struggling to see how it is equal.
So, six days a month, he has to pay extra hydro, gas, water and food. He has an extra bedroom therefore a slightly higher rent than if the children never went to his home.
We have the same amount of income for the month. That is what child and spousal support is supposed to do. Even out the playing field so the children's needs can be met.
On the same amount of money a month (we are calculated to 52% him 48% me) I have also have a slightly higher rent than if the children lived with me. I have to feed those children the other 25 days, hydro, gas, water, laundry, school fees, etc. I have to buy all their clothes and shoes and boots and outer wear. I could go on and on.
So no, to me, it isn't close. I know it is hard for a NCP to see the other side and there are women who are in it for the money but honestly, if the money is equal but the parenting time is not, then the NCP does come out ahead financially.
Comment
Comment